Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry

[Bosh]

Update from the Cato Institute on the situation. Looks like the Bush administration is still pulling the same **** a year later:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Boshko
Update from the Cato Institute on the situation. Looks like the Bush administration is still pulling the same **** a year later:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html

Ok so maybe the judical branch is trying to end the istuation but it still seems for all the world as if Padilla, a US citizen is still being held and still has not been charged. Are the judical and the legislative branches of government completely helpless to reign in such unconstitutional offenses?

It looks as if checks and balances doesn't work at all in this instance.

[Ramo]

SCOTUS has ruled in the Hamdi case that he would have standing to challenge the detention. Basically, the system is guilty until proven innocent for citizens that Ashcroft deems "enemy combatants." In the Padilla case (the difference is that Padilla was arrested here, while Hamdi in Afghanistan), SCOTUS competely skirted the issue for now, sending it back to a lower court for a jurisdictional probelm.

[Ben Kenobi]

Charge him, and then kick his butt in the court...

Why hold him?

[Ramo]

Because they don't have anything on him, most likely.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
It looks as if checks and balances doesn't work at all in this instance.

As President Jackson said, "Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it." This is nothing new. Joe Doherty was ordered released every time his case was in court, yet the U.S. government (under Regan, Bush, and Clinton) refused to let him go. He was a member of the IRA, and the U.S. wanted to extradite him to the UK, despite the fact that the extradition treaty clearly prohibits the extradition of political criminals.

[Wiglaf]

He is one gang member who tried to acquire dirty bomb. Shooting him is a bit harsh but detention is not. But to respond to the article:

-- (even the liberal nutjobs at Time have this to say - source http://www.time.com/time/pow/article...262269,00.html)

Details, of course, are sketchy, but it appears that Padilla converted to Islam after a prison spell in Florida, and eventually made his way to Afghanistan or Pakistan to make common cause with al-Qaeda.
--
Padilla got some instruction in bomb-making, and some cash. And al-Qaeda leaders reportedly discussed with him schemes ranging from "dirty bombs" to blowing up gas stations — discussions which some captive terrorist leaders appear to have shared with U.S. agents
---
Padilla entered public life via an announcement from Moscow on Monday, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, that an al-Qaeda operative had been captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, en route to contaminate a U.S. city with a radiological bomb.

So you tell me, how is he not an enemy combatant? Lincoln did something samey with the bastard Confederate sympathizers to great effect. In times of war the law falls silent

He's one guy, too. Let's not forget how one guy taking flight courses should've been investigated throughly prior to September 11th. This case has been publicized and as such it's worth noting Bush has taken fire for it. He must have something on him.

Especially considering the evidence perpetuated by the murderous Time magazine, mind you, he's guilty as sin.

To all you dirty-bombers or travellers to O'Hare airport - you can not run, you can not hide, we will destroy you.

(only in real life, not a speech at a democratic convention)

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
There are always plenty of candidates on the ballot. And you oculd write in any name you wanted.

Please don't encourage Pekka.

[Bosh]

Especially considering the evidence perpetuated by the murderous Time magazine, mind you, he's guilty as sin.

Then why hold him for years without charging him in blatant disregard for the Constitution?

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Bull****, since all Article III appointees have to be approved by the Senate."

We don't know what the composition of the Senate will be though. And we don't know if enough Republican Senators would have the backbone to fight Kerry's SC nominees. Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.

Even in the scenario that left-wing justices are fought by the Senate GOP, the most likely way I would guess such a standoff would end would be Kerry appointing someone whose views on controversial issues are unknown, but whom Kerry privately knows is a liberal.

Regarding Padilla, yes it's clearly wrong. But it's also nothing new. Lincoln detained Southern Sympathizers in the Civil War. FDR detained Japanese Americans in WWII. We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
He is one gang member who tried to acquire dirty bomb. Shooting him is a bit harsh but detention is not. But to respond to the article:

-- (even the liberal nutjobs at Time have this to say - source http://www.time.com/time/pow/article...262269,00.html)

So you tell me, how is he not an enemy combatant? Lincoln did something samey with the bastard Confederate sympathizers to great effect. In times of war the law falls silent

He's one guy, too. Let's not forget how one guy taking flight courses should've been investigated throughly prior to September 11th. This case has been publicized and as such it's worth noting Bush has taken fire for it. He must have something on him.

Especially considering the evidence perpetuated by the murderous Time magazine, mind you, he's guilty as sin.

To all you dirty-bombers or travellers to O'Hare airport - you can not run, you can not hide, we will destroy you.

(only in real life, not a speech at a democratic convention)

Wig all this tells me is that we should have charged this guy a long time back. Some here say that's because the case against him is slim which is clearly no reason to not press charges because a big chunk of those whom we have no evidence against could easily be innocent and the guy is a US citizen. The other reason that occurs to me is far more damning. Perhaps the case against him was strong originally but in the administrations arrogant contempt for our constitution it decided it was better to violate enough legal rules in his treatment to legally invalidate much of that evidence but possibly ferret out a few more crumbs of data than to just try him straight away. In that case they will force the horrible choice of suspending rule of law or allowing a known terrorist to go free. Incredible. I really hope it is just that they never had enough evidence on him to begin with.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Regarding Padilla, yes it's clearly wrong. But it's also nothing new. Lincoln detained Southern Sympathizers in the Civil War. FDR detained Japanese Americans in WWII. We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

I guess it is the haunting resemblence to those two awful episodes whichs scares the hell out of me. I condem FDR more for that internment than just about anything else he did (and I consider just about every distinctive thing FDR did as worse than worthless) and I regard Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus as the worst thing lincoln ever did and enough erase all of the admiration I would otherwise have had for his presidency. There are only two ways to oppose an out of control government. Legal means and open revolt. Removing the guarentee of habeas corpus from citizens allows only the latter and it tramples all over our constitution. You cannot prevent a future dystopia style coup by waiting until the conditions seem ripe. At that point it is almost always too late. You must be most vigiliant when you know you are the most safe to keep things that way.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.

You mean that you really think that politicians will avoid fighting for a political gain in order to not look like hypocrites I'm sure the Republicans in the Senate will pull out all the stops to fight an even mildly-left appointee.

We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

Nope, but its still a bad idea to vote for someone who blatantly disregards the constitution when its convenient (same applies to FDR for the Japanese internment which was worse).

[Ramo]

And considering that the Republicans held up something like 60 of Clinton's appointees (i.e. far, far, far more than the number of Bush appointees the Dems have held up), it's more than a little hard to believe that the Republicans will give Kerry's judicial appointees a free pass.

[Shi Huangdi]

You mean that you really think that politicians will avoid fighting for a political gain in order to not look like hypocrites I'm sure the Republicans in the Senate will pull out all the stops to fight an even mildly-left appointee.

It's not nessecarily politically hurtful in itself if a leftie gets through. It would be politically hurtful if they made themselves out to be brazen hypocrites?

Nope, but its still a bad idea to vote for someone who blatantly disregards the constitution when its convenient (same applies to FDR for the Japanese internment which was worse).

And what about Lincoln, then? Kick him out of office? Now, suppose everyone felt as you did in the North, and upon realizing what he is doing they turn overwhelmingly against him, allowing the Dems to sucsesfully nominate a peace candidate and have him win. Too bad for all those slaves, huh?

Now, had Kerry taken a stand agaisnt extrajudicial detainment, that would be something to consider but he hasn't, and I don't think it is too likely he would release Padilla either lest he be seen as weak on terror. WIth both candidates esentially the same, even if civil liberties is your most important issues you can then look at other ones. I am sure you wouldn't disappointed about it, but if you are a conservative as I assume Geronimo is there is a lot to lose. A Liberal Supreme Court could establish partial birth abortion on demand as a constitutional right, it could re-allow quotas in affirmative action, it could declare banning affirmative action unconstitutional, it can take away State's rights and ignore the Tenth Amendment, It can refuse to allow any type of gun ownership to be constitutionally protected, it could ban the death penalty, it could do any number of things and we might not get the chance to repair the damage until decades later.